4/21/2012

PolitiFact, supposedly devoted to helping you find the truth in politics, addressed the story about Barack Obama eating a dog, quoting from his book, Dreams from My Father:

With Lolo, I learned how to eat small green chili peppers raw with dinner (plenty of rice), and, away from the dinner table, I was introduced to dog meat (tough), snake meat (tougher), and roasted grasshopper (crunchy).

In an age of social media, PolitiFact heard complaints via Twitter. Their first response: “We’re not suggesting Obama disputes he ate dog meat in Indonesia. He doesn’t, that we’ve seen. We’re just publishing what he wrote about it.” It would be more accurate to call this a non-response, as it avoids the question of why there is no Truth-O-Meter rating for the claim, as opposed to putting the claim “in context.”

PolitiFact tried again: “Other subjects of “In Context” — Ted Nugent, Hilary Rosen, [and] Rick Santorum.” However, Nugent’s comment was a vague statement about the future, which is not susceptible to fact-checking. Likewise, Santorum’s comments about Satan’s agenda seem faith-based (unless PolitiFact is suggesting they have some way of checking in with the Prince of Darkness). And PolitiFact’s refusal to rate Hilary Rosen’s comment that Ann Romney “never worked a day in her life” merely helped Rosen (and by extension, Democrats generally) wriggle away from the controversy over what is seen as a widespread attitude among the Left toward stay-at-home moms.

Thus, it is apparent when it comes to stories about Republican presidential candidates eating unusual animals or arguably stressing a dog, PolitiFact has its Truth-O-Meter at the ready. When a Democrat president’s book contains the admission he ate dog, PolitiFact cannot find its Truth-O-Meter. When Obama is the subject, PolitiFact’ s “heart” simply disappears, even when the problem is made apparent to them by public complaint.

Regarding Politifact trying again with “In Context” Hilary Rosen – if one reads the link, inside the Hilary Rosen piece is a non-truth that Politifact doesn’t mention: Rosen says,

Well, first, can we just get rid of this word “war” on women? The Obama campaign does not use it. President Obama does not use it. This is something that the Republicans are accusing people of using, but they’re actually the one spreading it.

Yet, the Weekly Standard notes that the head of the DNC, Debbie herself used the term to reference the “anti-woman” stand of the right,

Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the new chair of the Democratic National Committee, said Thursday morning that Republicans are “anti-woman” and are waging “war on women” in pursuit of an “extremely radical social agenda.” What about her Democratic colleagues who voted the same way as Republicans to cut off taxpayer-funding of abortion and/or Planned Parenthood? Are they “anti-woman” as well? “No,” said Wasserman Schultz.

So, if Politifact wants us to take them seriously as truth-o-meters and their In Context bit, shouldn’t they their very reference comments/claims used to determine the truth, be vetted, too? Because if not, they are essentially using untruths to try to prove a truth. Or some illogically inconsistent nonsense like that.

“The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which has raised $1.1 million in its “War On Women” fundraising effort, also drew attention to Limbaugh’s remarks in an email to supporters, calling on Democrats to sign a petition asking Republican leaders to condemn the radio host.”

daley–were you able to house train your wheaten? They are beautiful, friendly dogs for sure. But our friends’ wheaten (who is about 7 years old now) always has had “accidents” and regularly goes out to the yard and then wees in the kitchen right by the sliding door the minute he comes back inside.

Thus, it is apparent when it comes to stories about Republican presidential candidates eating unusual animals or arguably stressing a dog, PolitiFact has its Truth-O-Meter at the ready. When a Democrat president’s book contains the admission he ate dog, PolitiFact cannot find its Truth-O-Meter.

I found Politifact a little over three years ago. I started tracking the website with no clue as to if they had any bias. But in a period of just 3-4 weeks, I became suspicious.

The one that put me over and I dumped them was when they said the cigarette tax Obama signed didn’t break this promise:
“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

Reading their justification was laughable. They said because he always used income taxes as examples, the cigarette tax didn’t count. They also floated other BS for their justification. I lambasted them in an email and all I got back was a staffer saying he wished I would reconsider my decision to not visit their website anymore.

Every “objective fact-checking organization” that I’ve seen that promises to finally be a real independent and objective fact checking organization turns out to be another pretender. Put some negative things out about your own side to give the appearance of being equally critical, but leave out tons of neagtive stuff on your guy and amplify nonsense about your opponent.

I’d rather have people who let their biases be known and at the same time documents their claims and is open to challenge.